[han]

Here is part one of a 2-part question:

Scoring: IMP

2C-(p)-2D-(3C)
3S-(4C)-??

---

You are playing with jdonn, 2D showed some values (2H would be negative) but you have no further agreements. What is your next call?

[mikeh]

5♠.

The odds are very high that he has a stiff or void (or A) of ♣s, but there seems to be little risk in asking.

I suspect that the second part may have to do with what we bid over 6♣ by him.

I have my idea on that, but I'll wait to see if that is the problem.

[han]

Almost mikeh, I might as well give it now as I doubt many are going to disagree with your 5♠.

Partner bids 6♥ next.

[Fluffy]

is 2♦ limited?, if limited to 8 then 5♠+7♥

[han]

2D is unlimited, it only denies a complete bust.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

5S.

I have to make a move, fit and shortage,
i.e. 4S is not enough.
- 4H is probably to play (?!)
- 5C shows a club control
- 5D shows fit and shortage, but most likely should
be a void
- 5H similar to 5D
- 5S is, what is left

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

Actually, 5♠ is a pretty good bid. I might not make it opposite myself, but I surely would opposite someone who's conservative with his 2♣ openings.

[mikeh]

6♥: that is a VERY interesting call.

We can draw some useful inferences.

In my view, he must hold both red Aces and first round ♣ control.

Without 1st round ♣ control, he'd bid 6♠ with a stiff, or the highly improbable Kx (no, I don't think he should bid 5N at imps to 'protect' the Kx)

With no control, he'd pass 5♠.

Therefore he holds 1st round ♣ control. If he held that and only one red suit control, he should bid 6♣ and allow me to cue my Ace if I hold it... which gets me back to my idea over 6♣... I was going to bid 6♠.

So he has both red Aces.

I think he has something like AQJxxx Ax AKQx A or AQJxxx AQx AKQx void (I like this second hand more than the 1st).

I don't believe that he should have a ♥ holding of Axx... it is too much to expect us to tell whether our actual ♥ holding is adequate or whether we need KQxxx... plus he may infer that we are unlikely to hold KQxxx after our non-♥ positive response. I will conceal a good suit, to bid 2♦, but only with a complex hand: simple hands are shown simply. So I, for one, am unlikely to hold KQxxx.... some would have absolutely denied it by now.

So I bid 7♠: I cannot construct a hand on which 7♥ is better.... if LHO can ruff a ♥, well, if we found partner with AQJxxx AQJx AKx void, maybe he'd ruff a ♠ if we played ♥s. In the meantime, bidding 7♥, while not likely to lead to disaster, adds a layer of ambiguity for no good purpose.

[MFA]

5♦ splinter.

[whereagles]

6♥ over 5♠, huh? Well, that must be grand slam territory and I do have fitting hearts and a useful singleton. 7♠ it is.

[pclayton]

5♠ is fine, but I might have just tried 4N, since I trust my opponents.

6♥? Well this absolutely shows 1st round control of clubs. What I'm concerned about is the diamond suit, however, since 6♦ was bypassed.

AQJxxx, AQxx, KQx, A, seems possible but this is a VERY specific hand, but thats the conclusion I'll draw. So I'll try 6♠.

[Fluffy]

unlimited? I might not even buy 5♠ then , stop before its too late.

[Apollo81]

I would have just bid RKC. I suspect that for every time partner has xx of clubs (I suspect almost never) then you will misjudge 6 versus 7 at least once as a result.

It's pretty hard to argue that 5♠ isn't the best bid, so I won't go there.

I would guess to bid 7♠ over 6♥. Hopefully partner wouldn't have bid this way without the ♦A.

[mikeh]

I have given this more thought, after reading Phil's post.

I think that there are several approaches, of which I think the following two are best (bearing in mind that we are speaking of making this up at the table and expecting partner to work out our meaning)

1. 6♣: shows the ♣ control and denies a ♦ control. We will play 6♠ unless partner bids 6♦, over which I can, if I choose, cue 6♥ as another try

6♦: shows the ♣ and the ♦ control and denies a ♥ control

6♥: shows all 3 side controls and asks for generic red suit help: do you have ANYTHING extra, knowing that any red suit K will be enough. On this hand, opener will have something like AQJxxx AQx AKQx void but (if we held Kxxx x Kxxxx xxx) he might bid exactly this way with AQJxxx AKQx AQx void


or

2. 6♣ shows the ♣ control and denies control of one or both of the ♦ suit or the ♥ suit, and expects responder to cue his red ace if he holds one (or to jump to 7♠ if by some miracle he holds both)

6♦ shows all side suits and asks specifically for help in ♦s

6♥ shows all side suits and asks specifically for help in ♥s

I think the second makes more sense, and it is the one I would deduce. However, I can see the logic behind the first approach.

I should add that I do not accept Phil's construction of AQJxxx AQxx KQx A because it is unreasonable for opener to assume that we need all of the trump K, the ♥K and the ♦A to bid grand. He will expect us to bid 7, if 6♥ denies the ♦A, on Kxxx xx Axxxx xx, as an example.... wouldn't we argue (if we accept the logic that 6♥ denies the ♦A) that he has made a brilliant bid on AQJxxx AKQx KQx void?

No, opener will hope we have two working cards, plus trump length... he will not expect us to know that 2 keys are not enough.


Edit: BTW, regardless of whether I am correct in my thinking, I want to say that I like the fact that jdonn bid this way... it shows confidence in both his own thinking and in partner's. Whatever it meant, I like the attitude displayed

[Echognome]

I also disagree with phil's construction. If all partner wanted to hear was the ♦A, then I think he should bid 6♣ to find out. I will bid 7♠.

[Halo]

7S

Partner says he needs help in hearts for seven spades.

[000002]

The hand is good enough to take it as 9counts up.

if it's a forcing pass stay there,other bidding is weakish except few special.

pass 4♣ then------ pull pard's DBL/opps 5♣/pard's 4♦........







regards 000002

[HeartA]

5S already bid my hand. I now bbid 6S over 6H.

[Echognome]

HeartA, on Mar 13 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

5S already bid my hand. I now bbid 6S over 6H.

Partner also heard 5♠ and is *still* trying for grand. I don't understand this argument.

[HeartA]

Echognome, on Mar 13 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

HeartA, on Mar 13 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

5S already bid my hand.  I now bbid 6S over 6H.

Partner also heard 5♠ and is *still* trying for grand. I don't understand this argument.

Because I don't have extra for my 5S: no first control in any suit.